Smart Contract Development Frameworks - Solana versus Polygon • bits.run

Smart contract execution requires a deterministic runtime environment with constrained resources. Solana and Polygon implement this requirement through divergent architectural choices, resulting in fundamentally different developer experiences. Solana employs a single global state architecture optimized for parallel execution, while Polygon provides an EVM-compatible layer atop Ethereum's established ecosystem.

Computational Model and State Management

Solana's programming model treats smart contracts as stateless, on-chain programs. The contract code itself is immutable and stored in a dedicated account. State is maintained in separate, mutable data accounts that are passed to the program during invocation. This separation enables the runtime to schedule non-overlapping transactions in parallel.

A Solana program defines an explicit entry point deserializing the instruction data and account list.

use solana_program::{
    account_info::AccountInfo, entrypoint, entrypoint::ProgramResult, pubkey::Pubkey,
};

entrypoint!(process_instruction);
fn process_instruction(
    program_id: &Pubkey,
    accounts: &[AccountInfo],
    instruction_data: &[u8],
) -> ProgramResult {
    // Decode instruction and account data
    // Implement program logic
    Ok(())
}

The runtime provides the program with the program_id (verifying ownership), the accounts list (containing both data accounts and signer accounts), and the instruction_data. The program must validate that all provided accounts are owned by the program and that signers have provided valid signatures.

Polygon, as an EVM-compatible chain, inherits Ethereum's stateful contract model. Each contract maintains its own persistent storage. The EVM executes transactions sequentially within a block, using a global state trie.

A Solidity contract on Polygon manages its internal state directly.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

contract SimpleStorage {
    uint256 private storedValue;
    
    function set(uint256 value) public {
        storedValue = value;
    }
    
    function get() public view returns (uint256) {
        return storedValue;
    }
}

The contract's storage is modified in-place upon transaction completion. This model simplifies contract design for sequential operations but limits parallel execution potential.

Execution Environment and Fee Mechanics

Solana's runtime executes contracts as native BPF bytecode, achieving near-native performance. Programs are compiled from Rust, C, or C++, providing low-level system access. Execution fees are based on computational units consumed, with a fixed fee per signature. Transaction costs are predictable and typically minimal, though complex computations incur higher unit costs.

The fee structure includes:

Base fee per signature (5,000 lamports)
Computational unit fee (varies by network congestion)
Rent for account storage (approximately 0.0005 SOL per 100KB annually)

Transactions must specify all accounts they will access, enabling the scheduler to identify parallelizable workloads. A transaction touching accounts A and B can execute concurrently with one touching C and D, but will serialize with one touching A and C.

Polygon executes EVM bytecode in a sandboxed environment. The EVM's gas mechanism meters execution, with each opcode having a fixed gas cost. Gas prices fluctuate with network demand. While cheaper than Ethereum mainnet, Polygon gas fees remain variable and subject to network conditions.

Key gas costs on Polygon:

SSTORE to non-zero slot: 5,000 gas
SLOAD: 800 gas
Simple transfer: 21,000 gas

The EVM's sequential execution model simplifies contract reasoning but limits throughput. All transactions in a block execute in order, with each transaction fully completing before the next begins.

Development Workflow and Tooling

Solana development centers on the Anchor framework, which provides an IDL (Interface Description Language) and code generation to reduce boilerplate. Anchor handles account validation, instruction serialization, and client code generation.

An Anchor program defines a context struct mapping accounts and implements logic as methods.

use anchor_lang::prelude::*;

declare_id!("Fg6PaFpoGXkYsidMpWTK6W2BeZ7FEfcYkg476zPFsLnS");

#[program]
pub mod counter {
    use super::*;
    
    pub fn initialize(ctx: Context<Initialize>) -> Result<()> {
        let counter = &mut ctx.accounts.counter;
        counter.count = 0;
        Ok(())
    }

    pub fn increment(ctx: Context<Increment>) -> Result<()> {
        let counter = &mut ctx.accounts.counter;
        counter.count += 1;
        Ok(())
    }
}

#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Initialize<'info> {
    #[account(init, payer = user, space = 8 + 8)]
    pub counter: Account<'info, Counter>,
    #[account(mut)]
    pub user: Signer<'info>,
    pub system_program: Program<'info, System>,
}

#[derive(Accounts)]
pub struct Increment<'info> {
    #[account(mut)]
    pub counter: Account<'info, Counter>,
}

#[account]
pub struct Counter {
    pub count: u64,
}

The #[derive(Accounts)] macro generates account validation logic, ensuring the provided accounts match the program's requirements. Anchor's type system prevents common errors like missing signers or invalid account ownership.

Polygon development uses Ethereum's established toolchain: Hardhat, Truffle, or Foundry with Solidity/Vyper. The ecosystem provides extensive testing libraries, deployment scripts, and verification tools.

A Hardhat configuration for Polygon might include:

// hardhat.config.js
module.exports = {
  networks: {
    polygon: {
      url: "https://polygon-rpc.com",
      accounts: [process.env.PRIVATE_KEY],
      gasPrice: 40000000000, // 40 Gwei
    },
  },
  solidity: {
    version: "0.8.9",
    settings: {
      optimizer: {
        enabled: true,
        runs: 200,
      },
    },
  },
};

The tooling handles contract compilation, deployment, and testing with familiar JavaScript/TypeScript interfaces.

Client Integration and Transaction Construction

Solana client interaction requires constructing transactions with explicit account lists and instruction data. The web3.js library provides primitives for transaction building and signing.

A client invoking a Solana program must:

import { Connection, Transaction, SystemProgram, sendAndConfirmTransaction } from '@solana/web3.js';
import { PublicKey, TransactionInstruction } from '@solana/web3.js';

// Create instruction to invoke program
const instruction = new TransactionInstruction({
  keys: [
    { pubkey: counterAccount, isSigner: false, isWritable: true },
    { pubkey: userAccount, isSigner: true, isWritable: true },
  ],
  programId: programId,
  data: Buffer.alloc(0), // Instruction data for increment
});

const transaction = new Transaction().add(instruction);
const signature = await sendAndConfirmTransaction(
  connection,
  transaction,
  [userKeypair]
);

The client must know precisely which accounts the transaction will access and their roles (signer, writable). This explicit accounting enables parallel execution but increases client complexity.

Polygon transactions follow the Ethereum pattern of targeting a contract address with encoded function calls.

import { ethers } from 'ethers';

const provider = new ethers.providers.JsonRpcProvider('https://polygon-rpc.com');
const signer = new ethers.Wallet(privateKey, provider);

const contract = new ethers.Contract(contractAddress, abi, signer);

// Transaction automatically encodes function call and manages nonce/gas
const tx = await contract.increment();
await tx.wait();

The client interface abstracts the underlying account model, presenting a simpler RPC-like interface. The tradeoff is reduced transparency about which storage slots will be accessed.

Performance Characteristics and Limitations

Solana's parallel execution provides high throughput for properly designed applications. The network achieves 2,000-50,000 transactions per second depending on workload characteristics. However, this performance requires careful transaction construction to minimize account conflicts.

Performance bottlenecks emerge when:

Transactions frequently access popular accounts (like token mints)
Programs require many accounts exceeding per-transaction limits
Complex computations exceed the computational unit budget

The current per-transaction limits include:

1.4MB total size
64 account addresses
1.2 million computational units
1232 bytes of instruction data

Polygon's sequential execution caps throughput at approximately 7,000-10,000 transactions per second under ideal conditions. Real-world performance typically ranges from 50-100 TPS for complex contract interactions. The EVM's gas limit per block (currently 30 million gas on Polygon) constrains block complexity.

Each architecture faces distinct scaling challenges:

Solana: Account contention in parallel scheduler
Polygon: Block gas limit and sequential execution

Security Considerations and Audit Surface

Solana's security model requires programs to validate all input accounts rigorously. Common vulnerabilities include:

Missing ownership checks on provided accounts
Insufficient signer verification for privileged operations
Arithmetic overflow in native Rust code
Reentrancy through callback mechanisms (though less common than in EVM)

The Anchor framework mitigates some risks through procedural macros that validate account types and permissions. However, the low-level system access introduces risks like buffer overflows and integer manipulation.

Polygon inherits Ethereum's security landscape with emphasis on:

Reentrancy attacks across contract calls
Integer overflow/underflow (mitigated by SafeMath or Solidity 0.8+)
Access control violations
Front-running through transaction ordering

The EVM's sandboxed environment prevents memory corruption but introduces new attack vectors through its storage model and cross-contract call semantics.

Tradeoffs / Implications

The architectural divergence between Solana and Polygon represents a fundamental tradeoff between performance and compatibility.

Solana's parallel execution model offers higher theoretical throughput but demands more from developers. Programs must be designed with explicit state management and account awareness. The learning curve is steeper, particularly for developers unfamiliar with systems programming concepts. The ecosystem, while growing rapidly, lacks the depth of Ethereum's tooling and auditing expertise.

Polygon's EVM compatibility provides immediate access to Ethereum's ecosystem: development tools, auditing firms, documentation, and libraries. The sequential programming model is conceptually simpler for many application patterns. However, this compatibility comes at the cost of Ethereum's architectural limitations, including sequential execution and higher latency.

The choice between platforms depends on application requirements:

High-frequency trading, gaming, or social applications with many independent users benefit from Solana's parallel execution.
DeFi protocols requiring complex composability or leveraging existing Ethereum infrastructure may prefer Polygon's EVM compatibility.
Applications needing maximal security assurance may favor Polygon's mature auditing ecosystem.
Performance-sensitive applications with predictable access patterns may achieve better throughput on Solana.

Both platforms continue to evolve. Solana is developing additional higher-level frameworks to simplify development, while Polygon is exploring parallel EVM implementations and zero-knowledge scaling solutions.

References

Solana Documentation: Sealevel Parallel Runtime
Solana Program Library Source Code
Ethereum Yellow Paper: EVM Specification
Polygon POS Technical Documentation
Anchor Framework Documentation
Hardhat Network Guide